Clothing and Disguises
R. Yaakov Bieler
Parashat Tetzave, 5770
A
well-known proverb states, “Clothes make the man.”[1]
Would Jewish tradition agree? On the one hand, considering the “Bigdei Kehuna”
(clothing of the Priesthood) described in Parshiot Tetzave and Pekudei, and
required to be worn by Aharon and his descendents whenever they perform the
sacrificial service in first the Tabernacle and later the
Zevachim 15b Mishna
All sacrifices whose blood is collected by: a non-Kohen, a Kohen in mourning, a Kohen who had just ritually immersed in order to remove ritual impurity, a Kohen lacking (the specially designated) clothing, a Kohen who did not ritually wash his hands and feet, an uncircumcised Kohen, a ritually impure Kohen, a Kohen sitting or standing on a manufactured article, on an animal, on the feet of a fellow Kohen, (all such sacrifices) are disqualified…
but much more dramatically and even existentially,
Ibid. 17b
From where do we know this (that a Kohen lacking the proper ritual garments causes the sacrifices that he offers to become disqualified)?
Said R. Abahu in the name of R. Yochanan and it reached him in the name of R. Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon: The verse states, (Shemot 29:9) “And you will gird them with a sach, Aharon and his sons. And you will clothe them in a turban. And the priesthood will be for them priesthood as a statute forever and you will fill the hand of Aharon and the hand of his sons.” –At the time that their (special ritual) garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them; when their garments are not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them.
The priestly garments then become a study in how a uniform can strip an individual of his uniqueness and transform him into an essentially anonymous member of a team, whose purpose is to carry out specified actions, independent of personal idiosyncrasies or predilections. A uniform therefore makes one “uniform”, conforming to conventions and behaviors imposed from without. and their clothing is not upon them, their priesthood is not upon them. The fact that it is difficult to completely obliterate one’s individuality by means of donning particular articles of clothing is implied by Sefer HaChinuch’s explanation for why God Commanded that Priests wear special clothes:
Sefer HaChinuch #99 The Commandment to put on Priestly Clothing
…when the individual would look at any part of his body, immediately he would remember and his thoughts and intentions would be directed towards He before Whom he is standing. It is essentially like Tefillin that everyone is Commanded to place upon a portion of his body, so that it will serve as a reminder to make one’s thoughts appropriate. And even though the Priest would also put on Tefillin, because of the importance of this (the Divine Service) he also needs this (the special clothing). And for this very reason it is said that it was obligatory that the length of the robe was such to cover his entire body ending just slightly above the ankle, and the length of the sleeve would be up to the palms of the hands. The turban would consist of a strip of cloth that was 16 Amot (24 feet) and would encompass his head so that he would see it whenever he would lift his eyes.[2] And the sash with which he girds his loins, its length is 32 Amot, and he winds it around his body time after time to the point where he feels it at all times in his arms that will always be coming into contact with it…
Consequently the personal transformation of the individual takes place not only by means of the clothes themselves, but also their voluminous and all-encompassing qualities. Perhaps when these priests are engaged in everyday life and not wearing their special outfits, who they are is determined by their personalities, their beliefs, their particular behaviors. However, once they don their ritual garments, they become priests, transcending their individual existences in exchange for a higher purpose and set of concerns.
Clothing plays a significant role in Megillat Esther as well, Purim being unambiguously brought to mind by this morning’s additional reading for Parashat Zachor from Devarim 25:17-19. In the main, clothing and jewelry in the Megilla are associated with royalty. Vashti is to wear her crown in front of the rest of the nobles,[3] Esther is subsequently given her predecessor’s crown,[4] first Haman[5] and then Mordechai are given Achashveirosh’s ring,[6] Esther puts on her royal garments prior to entering the king’s throne room,[7] Haman has to outfit Mordechai with royal clothes as he parades him around Shushan,[8] and ultimately Mordechai comes away from his battle with anti-Semites in glorious royal vestments.[9] However, a counter-theme is exemplified when Mordechai tears his clothing reflecting his and the rest of the Jews’ state of mourning once they learn of the royal extermination decree.[10] (This same symbol appears in the Haftora for Parashat Zachor, when the kingship is “ripped away” from Shaul as a result of his non-compliance with the Divine Commandment to completely annihilate Amalek.[11]) These counterpunctal themes, the highest level of human dignity and the depths of depression and sadness powerfully suggest that just as clothing can add status and confer privilege, when that same clothing is removed, especially if unwillingly torn away, the individual undergoes a severe reversal of fortune and mood. Some suggest, based upon the Tora’s adjuration against self-mutilation in Devarim 14:1 when a person finds himself in the throes of mourning, that the tearing of clothing serves as a substitute for the tearing of one’s own body, something that a king might feel at least metaphorically when his kingdom, his “body politic” is taken from him.
Thinking about
clothing in Megillat Esther, brings us to that most intriguing and unique
custom on Purim, to don costumes and assume disguises.[12]
Aside from the spirit of “letting go” on
Purim and having some uninhibited fun that assuming alien personae and
identities via costumes invariably bring about—the much-discussed requirement
to become inebriated to the point where one can’t tell the difference between
“Cursed is Haman” and “Blessed is Mordechai”[13]
would be another indication of a loosening of one’s normal inhibitions in the
interests of making merry[14]—are
there spiritual aspects to the Purim masquerade as well? The most classical
explanation keys on a passage in Chullin 139b: “Where is there a reference to
Esther in the Tora?[15]
(Devarim 31:18) ‘And I ‘Haster Astir’ (will surely Hide) My Face on that day
because of all the evil that he did because he turned towards other gods.’” The
Rabbis are keying on the connection between the verb “to hide” and Esther’s
name. In fact Megillat Esther describes a Jewish community in exile following
the destruction of the
An evocative twist on this approach to understanding the custom to dress up on Purim is advanced by Benai Yisachar.[18] He invokes the following Talmudic passage as a rationale for wearing costumes as part of the celebrations of the day:
Megilla 12a
The students asked R. Shimon bar Yochai: Why were “the enemies of the Jews”[19] of that generation marked for destruction? (Even if ultimately the Jews were spared, the fact that Haman was able to advance his plan so far suggests that they had done something wrong and the threat was a response to their iniquity.)
He said to them: Answer your own question.
They said to him: Because they benefited from the banquet of that evil man (Achashveirosh.)
(He said to them:) If that was so, then only the people in Shuchan should have been under threat, rather than the Jews throughout the empire (who didn’t take part in the banquet)!
They said to him: You answer the question.
He said: Because they bowed down to the image (that Nevuchadnezar had erected in Bavel.)
They said to him: Is there favoritism in the matter (i.e., if they actually engaged in idolatry, why were they spared?)
He said to them: They only gave the appearance of bowing down. For that reason, HaShem only Gave the appearance of destroying them (with Haman’s plot ultimately foiled)…
Bnai Yissachar proceeds to extend the metaphor when he states, that just as it was assumed during the Purim redemption that not all things, whether people or sins, were what they outwardly appeared to be, so too today, we demonstrate via costumes that while it might sometimes seem from an external perspective as though we are not doing what we should, we hope that God can Discern the difference between what is simply outward appearance and that which constitutes our deeply held beliefs and values.
But there is also a deep psychological meaning that one could attribute to the act of masquerading on Purim, based upon, among other things, a notable passage in one of Shakespeare’s classic plays.[20] Children have always gravitated to dressing up in costumes and play acting; adults seem to be far more inhibited and have greater difficulty “suspending their disbelief” and pretending to be things that they think they are not.[21] Perhaps they are afraid that they will appear “silly” and display sides of themselves that they would prefer to stay hidden—not only from others, but from themselves as well. King Lear[22] tells the story of a single parent who deludes himself regarding the love of two of his three daughters. It is only once he has been cast out of his home and wanders on the heath in a state of madness that he achieves clarity with regard to the realities of his life. Clothing is made out to be one of the causes of his not understanding neither himself or those around him. Consider for example the following passage:
King Lear III iv 98-105
Lear.
THOU wert better in a grave, than to answer with thy uncovered body this
extremity of the skies.—Is man no more than this? Consider him well:
Thou owest the worm no silk, the beast no hide, the sheep no wool, the cat no
perfume:—Ha! here's three of us are sophisticated!—
Thou art the thing itself: unaccommodated man is no more but such a
poor, bare, forked animal as thou art.— Off, off, you lendings:—Come; unbutton
here.— [Tearing off his clothes.
The act of changing clothes potentially allows an individual to come to grips with his inner self, to ask the question who is he really? How much self-understanding does he possess? Even as he may be rejoicing on the Purim holiday, his donning a new “look” allows him the opportunity to come to know himself as well as others in new ways that can result in significant self-discovery. Just as the Jews found things out about themselves of which they had been previously unaware when they experienced such a close brush with death, just as Esther discovered previously unrealized reservoirs of courage once she was charged by her uncle to save the Jews, and just as Mordechai was observed as being extremely principled when not bowing to Haman, yet loyal when he uncovered the assassination plot against the king, we sometimes paradoxically have to break with who we are in order to come to better know just that thing—who we are! Costuming on Purim can generate these sorts of considerations and therefore I would maintain the practice is well worth the effort and personal resistance that often has to be overcome.
Although the Halacha states that on Purim one should dress in Yom Tov clothing in honor of the Divine Salvation of the Jews, I believe that exclusively on Purim, costumes are an alternative form of “Bigdei Yom Tov” (appropriate clothing for the Holiday), not only for the young but also Jews of all ages. Let us enjoy the Chag both on the inside as well as the outside and also be inspired by our clothes to fulfill the Divine Expectation that we become “Mamlechet Kohanim” (a kingdom of priests.)
[1]The Yale Book of Quotations, ed. Fred Shapiro,
[2] I
am reminded of something that my first Chumash teacher, R. Moshe Besdin,
ZaTza”L, said to me during my freshman year at
[3] Esther 1:11.
[4] Ibid., 2:17.
[5] Ibid., 3:10.
[6] Ibid., 8:2.
[7] Ibid., 5:1.
[8] Ibid., 6:8 ff.
[9] Ibid., 8:15.
[10] Ibid., 4:1.
[11] I Shmuel 15:27-8.
[12] RaMA, Orech Chayim 696:8.
[13] Megilla 7b.
[14] According to Eiruvin 65b,
Said R. Ilayi: By three things can the essence of an individual be discerned: “BeKoso” (lit. by his cup, i.e., how does he act when he is inebriated,) “U’BeKiso” (lit. and by his pocket, i.e., for what does he part with his money,) “U’BeKa’aso” (and by his anger). And there are those who say also “BeSechako” (by what he laughs at, how he amuses himself.)
In all of these
instances, one is afforded the opportunity to see beyond the carefully
constructed “veneer” to get a sense of what the person is really like beneath
it all. (Of course it could be contended that it is only through
self-discipline that an individual is able to realize his true potential, and
when his lusts and desires become unbridled due to artificial stimulants, the
desire for material gain, the unleashing of powerful emotions, or the
competitive spirit, one is not seeing the true person!) In Eiruvin 65a
R. Chiya notes the equivalence of the “Gematria” (numerical value) between
“Yayin” (wine) and “Sod” (secret) which leads him to suggest that “Nichnas
Yayin VeYatza Sod” (wine enters and secrets emerge), once again raising the
issue of overcoming inhibitions, this time regarding what is to be revealed as
opposed to what should remain concealed.
[15] This is ostensibly an anachronistic question since the Tora preceded the story of Esther by thousands of years. Yet one could say that not only based upon the principle, “Ma’asei Avot Siman LeBanim” (the deeds of the fathers are precursors for their offspring) but also because all of Jewish history is in one way or another foreshadowed in the Tora, it is not surprising to find references even to something contemporary, let alone Purim, in the five books of Moses.
[16]The Manchurian Candidate (1959) by Richard
Condon, is a political thriller novel about the son of a
prominent US political family who has been brainwashed
into being an unwitting assassin for the Communist
Party. The novel has twice been cinematically adapted, in 1962 and 2004.
[17] Thinking in these terms suggests that while we should be proud of our Jewishness and openly avow our religious commitments, Purim serves as an abject lesson that there may be other times when we would do well not to publicize our true identities, particularly before our adversaries. These two poles constitute yet another of the dialectical experiences that Jews who participate in the greater society regularly undergo.
[18] Cited in Avraham Yitzchak Shperling, Sefer Ta’amei HaMinhagim U’Mekorai HaDinim, Eshkol, Yerushalayim, p. 382, #892.
[19] When reference is made to the Jews being punished, because the Rabbis were loathe to even articulate such an idea, they would employ the euphemism “the enemies of the Jews”, in the same vein that a cemetery is referred to as a “Beit Chaim” (a house of life.)
[20] Clothing serves as a major theme in Shakespeare. Norman N. Holland (The Shakespearian Imagination, MacMillan Co., NY, 1964, p. 47) notes that in MacBeth, there are twenty five images of clothing and covering: I ii 54; I iii 40; I iii 108-9; I iii 145; I v 51; I vii 21; I vii 34; I vii 36; II i 107; II ii 69; II iii 12-3; II iii 108-12; II iii 122-3; II iii 128; II iv 38; III ii 47; IV I 88; IV iii 33; IV iii 172; IV iii 208; V i 5; V I 57; V ii 20-22; V iii 34; V iv 15.
[21]
I have long felt that the Pesach Seder, at which a person is “obligated to
see/show himself as if he has just left
[22] King Lear was the first Shakespearian play to be translated into Yiddish. The theme of unrequited love from a father to his daughters, the exiling of the parent from his home, the realization by the parent as to which of his children truly loves and respects him, are all themes that parallel aspects of the Jewish experience.